MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416215188 · doi:10.17615/z6r0-7x34

Lung Structure and Risk of Sleep Apnea in SPIROMICS.

2025· article· en· W4416215188 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abigail L. Koch, Nirupama Putcha, David Couper, Michelle Ziedler, Victor Kim, Surya P. Bhatt, Nadia N. Hansel, Alejandro P. Comellas, Jerry A. Krishnan, Victor E. Ortega, Igor Barjaktarević, MeiLan K. Han, Fernando J. Martínez, Prescott G. Woodruff, Andrew M. Namen, Stephen P. Peters, R. Graham Barr, Robert Paine, Christopher B. Cooper, Aaron Baugh, Eric A. Hoffman, Russell P. Bowler, Benjamin M. Smith, Amit Saha, Richard E. Kanner, Tracie L. Shing

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillGillings School of Public HealthGrifolsCanadian Lung AssociationGlenmark PharmaceuticalsResMedNational Institutes of HealthMcGill University Health CentreMylanRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSunovionMcGill UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArray BioPharmaU.S. Department of DefenseSanofiYork UniversityPfizerBiogenCOPD FoundationGlaxoSmithKlineCSL BehringDartmouth CollegeAmerican Thoracic SocietyChiesi FarmaceuticiAstraZenecaAmgenGenentechVeracyteTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsGilead Sciences
KeywordsCOPDOdds ratioBody mass indexSleep apneaObstructive sleep apneaConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyCohortCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale: The SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS) is a prospective cohort study that enrolled 2981 participants with the goal of identifying new chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subgroups and intermediate markers of disease progression. Individuals with COPD and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) experience impaired quality of life and more frequent exacerbations. COPD severity also associates with computed tomography scan-based emphysema and alterations in airway dimensions. Objectives: The objective was to determine whether the combination of lung function and structure influences the risk of OSA among current and former smokers. Methods: Using 2 OSA risk scores, the Berlin Sleep Questionnaire (BSQ), and the DOISNORE50 (Diseases, Observed apnea, Insomnia, Snoring, Neck circumference > 18 inches, Obesity with body mass index [BMI] > 32, R = are you male, Excessive daytime sleepiness, 50 = age ≥ 50) (DIS), 1767 current and former smokers were evaluated for an association of lung structure and function with OSA risk. Measurements and Main Results: The study cohort's mean age was 63 years, BMI was 28 kg/m2, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 74.8% predicted. The majority were male (55%), White (77%), former smokers (59%), and had COPD (63%). A high-risk OSA score was reported in 36% and 61% using DIS and BSQ respectively. There was a 9% increased odds of a high-risk DIS score (odds ratio [OR]=1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.03-1.14) and nominally increased odds of a high-risk BSQ score for every 10% decrease in FEV1 %predicted (OR=1.04, 95%CI: 0.998-1.09). Lung function-OSA risk associations persisted after additionally adjusting for lung structure measurements (%emphysema, %air trapping, parametric response mapping for functional small airways disease, , mean segmental wall area, tracheal %wall area, dysanapsis) for DIS (OR=1.12, 95%CI:1.03-1.22) and BSQ (OR=1.09, 95%CI:1.01-1.18). Conclusions: Lower lung function independently associates with having high risk for OSA in current and former smokers. Lung structural elements, especially dysanapsis, functional small airways disease, and tracheal %wall area strengthened the effects on OSA risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNC Libraries→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→